Had an Irish idea.

How to power a submarine.
Assume that nuclear is out for political reasons.
Diesel alone is no good because of limited range, and because it’s hell for submariners.

So lets power our submarines with wind power. Consider:

• A submarine only needs to be underwater in an actual war scenario and not even always then.
• So it could use wind power while on the surface to extend its range. Possibly even by a factor of three.
• Wind power can be quiet, which is good for both sailors and avoiding sonar detection.

mollwollfumble said:

Had an Irish idea.

How to power a submarine.
Assume that nuclear is out for political reasons.
Diesel alone is no good because of limited range, and because it’s hell for submariners.

So lets power our submarines with wind power. Consider:

• A submarine only needs to be underwater in an actual war scenario and not even always then.
• So it could use wind power while on the surface to extend its range. Possibly even by a factor of three.
• Wind power can be quiet, which is good for both sailors and avoiding sonar detection.

• Wind power can be quiet, which is good for both sailors and avoiding sonar detection.

Yeah, but a complete blowout for that pesky radar detection. I’m not sure but I suspect radar detection may, just may, be a longer method of detection than sonar.

Strategic submarines are supposed to be hidden all the time, because they’re armed with nuclear weapons.

mollwollfumble said:

Had an Irish idea.

How to power a submarine.
Assume that nuclear is out for political reasons.
Diesel alone is no good because of limited range, and because it’s hell for submariners.

So lets power our submarines with wind power. Consider:

• A submarine only needs to be underwater in an actual war scenario and not even always then.
• So it could use wind power while on the surface to extend its range. Possibly even by a factor of three.
• Wind power can be quiet, which is good for both sailors and avoiding sonar detection.

Nah. With modern anti-sub aeroplanes and helicopters, subs that can stay underwater for longer are the bomb. Even coming up to periscope depth is dangerous and risks detection. Staying submerged for long time and using passive sensors is the bomb.

party_pants said:

mollwollfumble said:

Had an Irish idea.

How to power a submarine.
Assume that nuclear is out for political reasons.
Diesel alone is no good because of limited range, and because it’s hell for submariners.

So lets power our submarines with wind power. Consider:

• A submarine only needs to be underwater in an actual war scenario and not even always then.
• So it could use wind power while on the surface to extend its range. Possibly even by a factor of three.
• Wind power can be quiet, which is good for both sailors and avoiding sonar detection.

Nah. With modern anti-sub aeroplanes and helicopters, subs that can stay underwater for longer are the bomb. Even coming up to periscope depth is dangerous and risks detection. Staying submerged for long time and using passive sensors is the bomb.

Yeah, but you’re thinking wartime in the middle of fights, and nuclear wartime.

Fights and clandestine landings are rare events, even in wartime. Stay submerged for those, obviously.

mollwollfumble said:

Yeah, but you’re thinking wartime in the middle of fights, and nuclear wartime.

Fights and clandestine landings are rare events, even in wartime. Stay submerged for those, obviously.

The whole point of submarines is that ‘the other side’ don’t know where they are.

If a submarine spends most of its time on the surface, then it’s easier to track it, especially with modern technology. The open sea is nowhere near as ‘ínvisible’ as it was in the 1940s.

The longer that a submarine is submerged, the in the larger and larger grows the ‘possibility cloud’ around its location. It could be here, it could be there, it could be there. There’s no easy way to determine which direction it took, at what speed, at what depth, or what changes it made to its course. After a while, the ‘possibility cloud’ grows big enough to cover a whole ocean. Effectively deploying anti-submarine resources against it becomes much more difficult for ‘the other side’‘.

If a submarine is on the surface most of the time, then it can be tracked much more easily, to a point where it can be said ‘it was in this area a matter of hours ago’. That gives a good starting point for anti-submarine forces.

And, it’s the job of some subs to be submerged as much as they can. Strategic missile subs have a primary goal: to get lost. They go out, submerge, stay submerged, and are meant to disappear. Their ‘deterrent’ value rests on the fact that they’re a strategic nuclear asset, and the ‘other side’ has no idea at all as to where those missiles are, and can’t neutralise them.

captain_spalding said:

mollwollfumble said:

Yeah, but you’re thinking wartime in the middle of fights, and nuclear wartime.

Fights and clandestine landings are rare events, even in wartime. Stay submerged for those, obviously.

The whole point of submarines is that ‘the other side’ don’t know where they are.

If a submarine spends most of its time on the surface, then it’s easier to track it, especially with modern technology. The open sea is nowhere near as ‘ínvisible’ as it was in the 1940s.

The longer that a submarine is submerged, the in the larger and larger grows the ‘possibility cloud’ around its location. It could be here, it could be there, it could be there. There’s no easy way to determine which direction it took, at what speed, at what depth, or what changes it made to its course. After a while, the ‘possibility cloud’ grows big enough to cover a whole ocean. Effectively deploying anti-submarine resources against it becomes much more difficult for ‘the other side’‘.

If a submarine is on the surface most of the time, then it can be tracked much more easily, to a point where it can be said ‘it was in this area a matter of hours ago’. That gives a good starting point for anti-submarine forces.

And, it’s the job of some subs to be submerged as much as they can. Strategic missile subs have a primary goal: to get lost. They go out, submerge, stay submerged, and are meant to disappear. Their ‘deterrent’ value rests on the fact that they’re a strategic nuclear asset, and the ‘other side’ has no idea at all as to where those missiles are, and can’t neutralise them.

> It’s the job of some subs to be submerged as much as they can. Strategic missile subs

I’m not talking about replacements for nuclear subs here, I’m not talking the height of the nuclear cold war either. Any subs that carry strategic missiles are going to be nuclear powered, not diesel. It’s diesel that’s the problem. There are only six countries with nuclear powered submarines.

I’m thinking subs of Australia and the other 100+ non-nuclear countries who, for instance, might need to land someone clandestinely in Sri Lanka, Yemen or Columbia. Land in some country that doesn’t routinely track the submarines of all other nations.

Even for countries that do routinely track the submarines of all other nations by satellite. I think I’m right in saying that satellites still can’t see sailing ships through cloud.

mollwollfumble said:

> It’s the job of some subs to be submerged as much as they can. Strategic missile subs

I’m not talking about replacements for nuclear subs here, I’m not talking the height of the nuclear cold war either. Any subs that carry strategic missiles are going to be nuclear powered, not diesel. It’s diesel that’s the problem. There are only six countries with nuclear powered submarines.

I’m thinking subs of Australia and the other 100+ non-nuclear countries who, for instance, might need to land someone clandestinely in Sri Lanka, Yemen or Columbia. Land in some country that doesn’t routinely track the submarines of all other nations.

Even for countries that do routinely track the submarines of all other nations by satellite. I think I’m right in saying that satellites still can’t see sailing ships through cloud.

Strategic missile subs are meant to disappear entirely.

But, it’s still the job of every submarine to disappear for as much of the time as possible. That ‘possibility cloud’ has to be made as large as it can be. That’s why submarines exist at all.

For ‘conventional’ submarines, the goal has been to find a system that allows them to maximise their submerged time. Hydrogen peroxide engines, Stirling cycle engines, that sort of thing.

Modern subs spend very much less time on the surface than those of previous decades. Not only because their underwater propulsion no longer needs such extensive charge times, or that it works longer underwater, but because most modern subs are actually faster under water.

The more time that a sub spends on the surface, the more opportunities there are to locate it (even intermittently), and the more opportunities there are to piece together ideas of its possible destinations and purposes. The easier it is then to deploy anti-submarine forces.

The whole idea of all submarines is that, from as soon as possible after leaving wharfside, their whereabouts is as much of a mystery as possible. Anything that detracts from that makes them more vulnerable, and less useful.

mollwollfumble said:

Diesel alone is no good because of limited range

FWIW, the WW2 Japanese submarine, the Sen-Toku I-400 – Each submarine had four 1,680 kW (2,250 hp) engines and carried enough fuel to go around the world one-and-a-half times—more than enough to reach the United States travelling east or west.

Some modern non-nuclear subs use Stirling engines for underwater propulsion. It’s slow, but very quiet, even quieter than a nuclear sub. All you need is a heat source to make the Stirling engine run and that’s fairly easy to do. The Germans also experimented with hydrogen peroxide propulsion (like a lot of torpedoes have used) in WW2, for more power underwater. I vaguely remember reading about fuel cell-powered sub experiments as well.

Spiny Norman said:

The RN took over two German Hydrogen peroxide subs, and commissioned them as experimental boats as HMS EXacalibur and HMS Explorer.

They became known as HMS Excruciator and HMS Exploder.

captain_spalding said:

mollwollfumble said:

> It’s the job of some subs to be submerged as much as they can. Strategic missile subs

I’m not talking about replacements for nuclear subs here, I’m not talking the height of the nuclear cold war either. Any subs that carry strategic missiles are going to be nuclear powered, not diesel. It’s diesel that’s the problem. There are only six countries with nuclear powered submarines.

I’m thinking subs of Australia and the other 100+ non-nuclear countries who, for instance, might need to land someone clandestinely in Sri Lanka, Yemen or Columbia. Land in some country that doesn’t routinely track the submarines of all other nations.

Even for countries that do routinely track the submarines of all other nations by satellite. I think I’m right in saying that satellites still can’t see sailing ships through cloud.

Strategic missile subs are meant to disappear entirely.

But, it’s still the job of every submarine to disappear for as much of the time as possible. That ‘possibility cloud’ has to be made as large as it can be. That’s why submarines exist at all.

For ‘conventional’ submarines, the goal has been to find a system that allows them to maximise their submerged time. Hydrogen peroxide engines, Stirling cycle engines, that sort of thing.

Modern subs spend very much less time on the surface than those of previous decades. Not only because their underwater propulsion no longer needs such extensive charge times, or that it works longer underwater, but because most modern subs are actually faster under water.

The more time that a sub spends on the surface, the more opportunities there are to locate it (even intermittently), and the more opportunities there are to piece together ideas of its possible destinations and purposes. The easier it is then to deploy anti-submarine forces.

The whole idea of all submarines is that, from as soon as possible after leaving wharfside, their whereabouts is as much of a mystery as possible. Anything that detracts from that makes them more vulnerable, and less useful.

I’m getting the feeling that the wind-powered submarine is a bad idea for roughly the same reasons that flying cars are a bad idea. A sailing ship works best if it’s as light as possible. A submarine works best if it’s really heavy.

Still, it’d be fun to try making one.

mollwollfumble said:

captain_spalding said:

mollwollfumble said:

> It’s the job of some subs to be submerged as much as they can. Strategic missile subs

I’m not talking about replacements for nuclear subs here, I’m not talking the height of the nuclear cold war either. Any subs that carry strategic missiles are going to be nuclear powered, not diesel. It’s diesel that’s the problem. There are only six countries with nuclear powered submarines.

I’m thinking subs of Australia and the other 100+ non-nuclear countries who, for instance, might need to land someone clandestinely in Sri Lanka, Yemen or Columbia. Land in some country that doesn’t routinely track the submarines of all other nations.

Even for countries that do routinely track the submarines of all other nations by satellite. I think I’m right in saying that satellites still can’t see sailing ships through cloud.

Strategic missile subs are meant to disappear entirely.

But, it’s still the job of every submarine to disappear for as much of the time as possible. That ‘possibility cloud’ has to be made as large as it can be. That’s why submarines exist at all.

For ‘conventional’ submarines, the goal has been to find a system that allows them to maximise their submerged time. Hydrogen peroxide engines, Stirling cycle engines, that sort of thing.

Modern subs spend very much less time on the surface than those of previous decades. Not only because their underwater propulsion no longer needs such extensive charge times, or that it works longer underwater, but because most modern subs are actually faster under water.

The more time that a sub spends on the surface, the more opportunities there are to locate it (even intermittently), and the more opportunities there are to piece together ideas of its possible destinations and purposes. The easier it is then to deploy anti-submarine forces.

The whole idea of all submarines is that, from as soon as possible after leaving wharfside, their whereabouts is as much of a mystery as possible. Anything that detracts from that makes them more vulnerable, and less useful.

I’m getting the feeling that the wind-powered submarine is a bad idea for roughly the same reasons that flying cars are a bad idea. A sailing ship works best if it’s as light as possible. A submarine works best if it’s really heavy.

Still, it’d be fun to try making one.

Still reckon you’d be wasting a lot of your time.

roughbarked said:

mollwollfumble said:

captain_spalding said:

Strategic missile subs are meant to disappear entirely.

But, it’s still the job of every submarine to disappear for as much of the time as possible. That ‘possibility cloud’ has to be made as large as it can be. That’s why submarines exist at all.

For ‘conventional’ submarines, the goal has been to find a system that allows them to maximise their submerged time. Hydrogen peroxide engines, Stirling cycle engines, that sort of thing.

Modern subs spend very much less time on the surface than those of previous decades. Not only because their underwater propulsion no longer needs such extensive charge times, or that it works longer underwater, but because most modern subs are actually faster under water.

The more time that a sub spends on the surface, the more opportunities there are to locate it (even intermittently), and the more opportunities there are to piece together ideas of its possible destinations and purposes. The easier it is then to deploy anti-submarine forces.

The whole idea of all submarines is that, from as soon as possible after leaving wharfside, their whereabouts is as much of a mystery as possible. Anything that detracts from that makes them more vulnerable, and less useful.

I’m getting the feeling that the wind-powered submarine is a bad idea for roughly the same reasons that flying cars are a bad idea. A sailing ship works best if it’s as light as possible. A submarine works best if it’s really heavy.

Still, it’d be fun to try making one.

Still reckon you’d be wasting a lot of your time.

Morning all.
Diesel subs have one advantage over nuclear. They can be totally silent when at rest. Nukes must run pumps etc for their reactors.